Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 777/2023
ANKUSH KUMAR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Chawla, Adv. along with petitioners.
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the State with SI Vikas Chand, PS
Mandir Marg.
Mr. Karmvir Singh and Mr. Amrish Malik, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2.
Date of Decision: 6th February, 2023
JUDGMENT
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 20 days in re- filing the petition is condoned.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 204/2016 registered at PS Mandir Marg, Delhi, under Sections 308/34 IPC.
2. The FIR was lodged on the statement of the complaint under Section 308/34 IPC wherein it has been alleged that on 30.09.2016 at around
11.30 p.m. he had gone to drop his friend at Balmiki Mandir, Mandir Marg Bus stand where two unknown persons were ina verbal dual with each other. The complainant alleged that he tried to intervene between them but the in the meanwhile, two other persons from his colony namely Ankush and Neelam Kumar reached there and started fighting with the complainant. It was alleged that Ankushand Neelam Kumar first gave him a beating with the feast blows and thereafter when his friend tried to rescue the complainant, Neelam and Ankush hit the complainant with a brick on his head. In this case, the charge sheet has already been filed and the charges have been framed by the Learned Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. He submits that the injured does not want to pursue the present complaint and therefore the petition may be quashed. Learned counsel has relied upon the Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr. in CRL. M.C. 751/2016.
4. Learned APP for the State states that this is a serious case where the accused persons had hit the complainant-injured with a brick. He submits that such cases send a signal of fear and apprehension in the mind of the people. He further submits that the final report is yet to be received on the MLC.
5. I have considered the submissions.
6. Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC has held that the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the Accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. The above principle has been followed by this Court in a plethora of cases including Manoj Kumar’s case (Supra).
7. It is a matter of fact that the present case arose out of a private fight between the parties. The petitioner allegedly hit the complainantinjured upon his head with a brick. Such kind of cases put a heavy burden on the system. The police machinery has to work on such cases and thereafter since the trial is also pending, the precious time of the Courts was also used for such cases. However, it has also to be seen that if the parties have reached a settlement and the complainant does not want to pursue the complaint, there are very bleak chances of a conviction. Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR No. 204/2016 registered at PS Mandir Marg, Delhi, under Sections 308/34 IPC and all the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed. However, the petitioners are burdened with the cost of Rs. 25,000/- each to be deposited with the Advocate Welfare Fund, High Court of Delhi and the receipt of the same be filed before next date of hearing.
8. List the matter for compliance on 09.03.2023.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 6, 2023